Re: 2.6.35-rc4-git3: Reported regressions from 2.6.34
On Friday, July 09, 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > Unresolved regressions
> > --
> >
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16353
> > Subject : 2.6.35 regression
> > Submitter : Zeev Tarantov
> > Date: 2010-07-05 13:04 (4 days old)
> > Message-ID :
> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127836002702522&w=2
>
> This is a gcc-4.5 issue. Whether it's also something that we should
> change in the kernel is unclear, but at least as of now, the rule is
> that you cannot compile the kernel with gcc-4.5. No idea whether the
> compiler is just entirely broken, or whether it's just that it
> triggers something iffy by being overly clever.
This claims to fix it, though: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/110988/
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16346
> > Subject : 2.6.35-rc3-git8 - include/linux/fdtable.h:88 invoked
> > rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
> > Submitter : Miles Lane
> > Date: 2010-07-04 22:04 (5 days old)
> > Message-ID :
> >
> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127828107815930&w=2
>
> I'm not entirely sure if these RCU proving things should count as regressions.
>
> Sure, the option to enable RCU proving is new, but the things it
> reports about generally are not new - and they are usually not even
> bugs in the sense that they necessarily cause any real problems.
>
> That particular one is in the single-thread optimizated case for fget_light,
> ie
>
> if (likely((atomic_read(&files->count) == 1))) {
> file = fcheck_files(files, fd);
>
> where I think it should be entirely safe in all ways without any
> locking. So I think it's a false positive too.
OK, so I'm going to close these bugs.
...
>
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16333
> > Subject : iwl3945: HARDWARE GONE??
> > Submitter : Priit Laes
> > Date: 2010-07-02 16:02 (7 days old)
> > Message-ID : <1278086575.2889.8.ca...@chi>
> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127808659705983&w=2
>
> This either got fixed, or will be practically impossible to debug. The
> reporter ends up being unable to reproduce the issue.
Closed as unreproducible.
...
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16330
> > Subject : Dynamic Debug broken on 2.6.35-rc3?
> > Submitter : Thomas Renninger
> > Date: 2010-07-01 15:44 (8 days old)
> > Message-ID : <201007011744.19564.tr...@suse.de>
> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127799907218877&w=2
>
> There's a suggested patch in
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127862524404291&w=2
>
> but no reply to it yet.
Patch information added to the bug entry (it's been confirmed to work).
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16329
> > Subject : 2.6.35-rc3: Load average climbing to 3+ with no apparent
> > reason: CPU 98% idle, with hardly no I/O
> > Submitter : Török Edwin
> > Date: 2010-07-01 7:40 (8 days old)
> > Message-ID : <20100701104022.40441...@debian>
> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127797005030536&w=2
>
> This seems to be partly a confusion about what "load average" is. It's
> not a CPU load, it's a system load average, and disk-wait processes
> count towards it. He has some problem with his CD-ROM, and it sounds
> like it might be hardware on the verge of going bad.
Closed.
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16324
> > Subject : Oops while running fs_racer test on a POWER6 box against
> > latest git
> > Submitter : divya
> > Date: 2010-06-30 11:34 (9 days old)
> > Message-ID : <4c2b28f3.7000...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127789697303061&w=2
>
> I wonder if this is the writeback problem. That POWER crash dump is
> unreadable, so it's hard to tell, but the load in question makes that
> at least likely.
>
> If so, it should hopefully be fixed in today's git (commit
> 83ba7b071f30f7c01f72518ad72d5cd203c27502 and friends).
OK, closed.
> > Bug-entry: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16323
> > Subject : 2.6.35-rc3-git4 - kernel/sched.c:616 invoked
> > rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
> > Submitter : Miles Lane
> > Date: 2010-07-01 12:21 (8 days old)
> > Message-ID :
> >
> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127798693125541&w=2
>
> See earlier about these being marked as regressions, but it should be
> fixed by commit dc61b1d6 ("sched: Fix PROVE_RCU vs cpu_cgroup").
Closed.
...
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16309
> > Subject : 2.6.35-rc3 oops trying to
Re: 2.6.35-rc4-git3: Reported regressions from 2.6.34
On Friday, July 09, 2010, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 06:34:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16284 > > > Subject : Hitting WARN_ON in hw_breakpoint code > > > Submitter : Paul Mackerras > > > Date: 2010-06-23 12:57 (16 days old) > > > Message-ID : <20100623125740.ga3...@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com> > > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127729789113432&w=2 > > > > This has "I have a fix, will post it very soon." in the thread from > > Frederic, but I'm not seeing anything else. Frederic? > > > > Right. In fact it wasn't a regression. The per task breakpoint reservation > design was broken from the beginning and this warning has revealed the > problem. This only touched perf, and it did since perf support breakpoints. > Fortunately ptrace wasn't concerned by this problem, even not by side effects > of this. > > The fix is invasive as it's a rewrite of a (little) part of the breakpoint > reservation. And since the symptom is only a warning and also breakpoints > never released from the constraint table (just a counter, no memory leak), > the fix is headed for 2.6.36. > > It is ready in tip:/perf/core: > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip.git;a=commitdiff;h=45a73372efe4a63f44aa2e1125d4a777c2fdc8d8 > > I think this ticket can be safely closed. OK, closing. Rafael -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: 2.6.35-rc4-git3: Reported regressions from 2.6.34
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 18:34:25 -0700 Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16307 > > Subject : i915 in kernel 2.6.35-rc3, high number of wakeups > > Submitter : Enrico Bandiello > > Date : 2010-06-26 16:57 (13 days old) > > Message-ID : <4c26317a.5070...@postal.uv.es> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127757403404259&w=2 > > I don't think anybody noticed this one. Jesse? Oh I hadn't seen that... Enrico, can you bisect this issue? It could be some spurious hotplug events or possibly a stuck vblank interrupt... > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16265 > > Subject : Why is kslowd accumulating so much CPU time? > > Submitter : Theodore Ts'o > > Date : 2010-06-09 18:36 (30 days old) > > First-Bad-Commit: > > http://git.kernel.org/linus/fbf81762e385d3d45acad057b654d56972acf58c > > Message-ID : > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127610857819033&w=4 > > Dave, Jesse? I haven't looked at the switchable graphics stuff, hopefully Dave has an idea here. > Fixed by commit f4985dc714d7. > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16228 > > Subject : BUG/boot failure on Dell Precision T3500 > > (pci/ahci_stop_engine) > > Submitter : Brian Bloniarz > > Date : 2010-06-16 17:57 (23 days old) > > Handled-By : Bjorn Helgaas > > This has a butt-ugly suggested patch that certainly won't be applied. > I saw the thread, but lost sight of it. Jesse, did that end up with > some resolution? I'll follow up with Yinghai, we were pretty clear about what we wanted from that patch. > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16179 > > Subject : 2.6.35-rc2 completely hosed on intel gfx? > > Submitter : Norbert Preining > > Date : 2010-06-06 11:55 (33 days old) > > Message-ID : <20100606115534.ga9...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127582534931581&w=2 > > Hmm. That one is the vt.c bug coupled with another problem, which in > turn got opened as a separate bugzilla entry: > >http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16252 > > which in turn then got closed. I dunno. Yeah, this is weird. Norbert, do you still see this? Have you tried to bisect it? -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: 2.6.35-rc4-git3: Reported regressions from 2.6.34
* Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Bug-Entry ? ? ? : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16346
> > Subject ? ? ? ? : 2.6.35-rc3-git8 - include/linux/fdtable.h:88 invoked
> > rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
> > Submitter ? ? ? : Miles Lane
> > Date ? ? ? ? ? ?: 2010-07-04 22:04 (5 days old)
> > Message-ID ? ? ?:
> >
> > References ? ? ?: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127828107815930&w=2
>
> I'm not entirely sure if these RCU proving things should count as
> regressions.
Generally not - and we've delayed at least one more complex (cgroups) fix to
v2.6.36 because the patch itself was riskier than the warning.
Still most of the warning fixes turned out to be simple, so we merged the
very-low-risk ones and right now we seem to be on top of them.
But in general the default rule is that we delay these fixes to v2.6.36.
> Sure, the option to enable RCU proving is new, but the things it reports
> about generally are not new - and they are usually not even bugs in the
> sense that they necessarily cause any real problems.
>
> That particular one is in the single-thread optimizated case for fget_light,
> ie
>
> if (likely((atomic_read(&files->count) == 1))) {
> file = fcheck_files(files, fd);
>
> where I think it should be entirely safe in all ways without any locking. So
> I think it's a false positive too.
Yeah, it's a bit like with lockdep (and it's a bit like with compiler warning
fixes): we had to punch through a large stack of false positives that
accumulated in the past 10 years.
( Because real bugs eventually get fixed, while false positives always just
accumulate. So almost by definition we always start with a very assymetric
collection of warnings and a large stack of false positives. )
Having said that, it appears we got most of the false positives and are
beginning to be in a more representative equilibrium now. If v2.6.35 isnt
going to be warning-free then v2.6.36 certainly will be and new warnings will
have a much higher likelyhood of being real (and new) bugs (not just
accumulated false-positives).
Ingo
--
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
--
___
Dri-devel mailing list
Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: 2.6.35-rc4-git3: Reported regressions from 2.6.34
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16175 Subject : 2.6.35-rc1 system oom, many processes killed but memory not free Submitter : andrew hendry Date: 2010-06-05 0:46 (34 days old) Message-ID : References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127569877714937&w=2 Can be put down to bad ramdisk settings > actual memory, its probably not a regression. I think it can be closed for now, i'll do some testing and see if ramdisk should complain before letting such configuration go through. On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.34, > for which there are no fixes in the mainline known to the tracking team. > If any of them have been fixed already, please let us know. > > If you know of any other unresolved regressions from 2.6.34, please let us > know either and we'll add them to the list. Also, please let us know > if any of the entries below are invalid. > > Each entry from the list will be sent additionally in an automatic reply > to this message with CCs to the people involved in reporting and handling > the issue. > > > Listed regressions statistics: > > Date Total Pending Unresolved > > 2010-07-09 79 45 37 > 2010-06-21 46 37 26 > 2010-06-09 15 13 10 > > > Unresolved regressions > -- > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16353 > Subject : 2.6.35 regression > Submitter : Zeev Tarantov > Date : 2010-07-05 13:04 (4 days old) > Message-ID : > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127836002702522&w=2 > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16346 > Subject : 2.6.35-rc3-git8 - include/linux/fdtable.h:88 invoked > rcu_dereference_check() without protection! > Submitter : Miles Lane > Date : 2010-07-04 22:04 (5 days old) > Message-ID : > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127828107815930&w=2 > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16337 > Subject : general protection fault: [#1] SMP > Submitter : Justin P. Mattock > Date : 2010-07-03 22:59 (6 days old) > Message-ID : <4c2fc0e3.6050...@gmail.com> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127819798215589&w=2 > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16334 > Subject : reiserfs locking (v2) > Submitter : Sergey Senozhatsky > Date : 2010-07-02 9:34 (7 days old) > Message-ID : <20100702093451.ga3...@swordfish.minsk.epam.com> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127806306303590&w=2 > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16333 > Subject : iwl3945: HARDWARE GONE?? > Submitter : Priit Laes > Date : 2010-07-02 16:02 (7 days old) > Message-ID : <1278086575.2889.8.ca...@chi> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127808659705983&w=2 > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16332 > Subject : Kernel crashes in tty code (tty_open) > Submitter : wer...@guyane.yi.org > Date : 2010-07-02 3:34 (7 days old) > Message-ID : <1278041650.12...@guyane.yi.org> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127804167511930&w=2 > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16330 > Subject : Dynamic Debug broken on 2.6.35-rc3? > Submitter : Thomas Renninger > Date : 2010-07-01 15:44 (8 days old) > Message-ID : <201007011744.19564.tr...@suse.de> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127799907218877&w=2 > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16329 > Subject : 2.6.35-rc3: Load average climbing to 3+ with no apparent > reason: CPU 98% idle, with hardly no I/O > Submitter : Török Edwin > Date : 2010-07-01 7:40 (8 days old) > Message-ID : <20100701104022.40441...@debian> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127797005030536&w=2 > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16324 > Subject : Oops while running fs_racer test on a POWER6 box against > latest git > Submitter : divya > Date : 2010-06-30 11:34 (9 days old) > Message-ID : <4c2b28f3.7000...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127789697303061&w=2 > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16323 > Subject : 2.6.35-rc3-git4 - kernel/sched.c:616 invoked > rcu_dereference_check() without protection! > Submitter : Miles Lane > Date : 2010-07-01 12:21 (8 days old) > Message-ID : > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=12779869312554
Re: 2.6.35-rc4-git3: Reported regressions from 2.6.34
On Thursday, July 08, 2010 09:34:25 pm Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > Unresolved regressions
> > --
> >
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16353
> > Subject : 2.6.35 regression
> > Submitter : Zeev Tarantov
> > Date: 2010-07-05 13:04 (4 days old)
> > Message-ID :
> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127836002702522&w=2
>
> This is a gcc-4.5 issue. Whether it's also something that we should
> change in the kernel is unclear, but at least as of now, the rule is
> that you cannot compile the kernel with gcc-4.5. No idea whether the
> compiler is just entirely broken, or whether it's just that it
> triggers something iffy by being overly clever.
>
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16346
> > Subject : 2.6.35-rc3-git8 - include/linux/fdtable.h:88 invoked
> > rcu_dereference_check() without protection! Submitter : Miles Lane
> >
> > Date: 2010-07-04 22:04 (5 days old)
> > Message-ID :
> >
> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127828107815930&w=2
>
> I'm not entirely sure if these RCU proving things should count as
> regressions.
>
> Sure, the option to enable RCU proving is new, but the things it
> reports about generally are not new - and they are usually not even
> bugs in the sense that they necessarily cause any real problems.
>
> That particular one is in the single-thread optimizated case for
> fget_light, ie
>
> if (likely((atomic_read(&files->count) == 1))) {
> file = fcheck_files(files, fd);
>
> where I think it should be entirely safe in all ways without any
> locking. So I think it's a false positive too.
>
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16334
> > Subject : reiserfs locking (v2)
> > Submitter : Sergey Senozhatsky
> > Date: 2010-07-02 9:34 (7 days old)
> > Message-ID : <20100702093451.ga3...@swordfish.minsk.epam.com>
> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127806306303590&w=2
>
> Frederic? Al? I assume this is some late fallout from the BKL removal
> ages ago.. It's the old filldir-vs-mmap crud, but normally it should
> be impossible to trigger because the inode for a directory should
> never be mmap'able, so we should never have the same i_mutex lock used
> for both mmap and for filldir protection.
>
> We saw some of that oddity long ago, I wonder if it's lockdep being
> confused about some inodes.
>
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16333
> > Subject : iwl3945: HARDWARE GONE??
> > Submitter : Priit Laes
> > Date: 2010-07-02 16:02 (7 days old)
> > Message-ID : <1278086575.2889.8.ca...@chi>
> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127808659705983&w=2
>
> This either got fixed, or will be practically impossible to debug. The
> reporter ends up being unable to reproduce the issue.
>
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16332
> > Subject : Kernel crashes in tty code (tty_open)
> > Submitter : wer...@guyane.yi.org
> > Date: 2010-07-02 3:34 (7 days old)
> > Message-ID : <1278041650.12...@guyane.yi.org>
> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127804167511930&w=2
>
> This seems to be due to CONFIG_MRST (Moorestown).
>
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16330
> > Subject : Dynamic Debug broken on 2.6.35-rc3?
> > Submitter : Thomas Renninger
> > Date: 2010-07-01 15:44 (8 days old)
> > Message-ID : <201007011744.19564.tr...@suse.de>
> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127799907218877&w=2
>
> There's a suggested patch in
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127862524404291&w=2
>
> but no reply to it yet.
>
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16329
> > Subject : 2.6.35-rc3: Load average climbing to 3+ with no
> > apparent reason: CPU 98% idle, with hardly no I/O Submitter :
> > Török Edwin
> > Date: 2010-07-01 7:40 (8 days old)
> > Message-ID : <20100701104022.40441...@debian>
> > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127797005030536&w=2
>
> This seems to be partly a confusion about what "load average" is. It's
> not a CPU load, it's a system load average, and disk-wait processes
> count towards it. He has some problem with his CD-ROM, and it sounds
> like it might be hardware on the verge of going bad.
>
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16324
> > Subject : Oops while running fs_racer test on a POWER6 box
> > against latest git Submitter : divya
> > Date: 2010-06-30 11:34 (9 days old)
> > Message-ID : <4c2b28f3.7000...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > References : http://marc.info/
Re: 2.6.35-rc4-git3: Reported regressions from 2.6.34
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 06:34:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16284 > > Subject : Hitting WARN_ON in hw_breakpoint code > > Submitter : Paul Mackerras > > Date : 2010-06-23 12:57 (16 days old) > > Message-ID : <20100623125740.ga3...@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127729789113432&w=2 > > This has "I have a fix, will post it very soon." in the thread from > Frederic, but I'm not seeing anything else. Frederic? Right. In fact it wasn't a regression. The per task breakpoint reservation design was broken from the beginning and this warning has revealed the problem. This only touched perf, and it did since perf support breakpoints. Fortunately ptrace wasn't concerned by this problem, even not by side effects of this. The fix is invasive as it's a rewrite of a (little) part of the breakpoint reservation. And since the symptom is only a warning and also breakpoints never released from the constraint table (just a counter, no memory leak), the fix is headed for 2.6.36. It is ready in tip:/perf/core: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip.git;a=commitdiff;h=45a73372efe4a63f44aa2e1125d4a777c2fdc8d8 I think this ticket can be safely closed. Thanks. -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: 2.6.35-rc4-git3: Reported regressions from 2.6.34
Hi Rafael, On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 1:33 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: [...] Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16169 Subject : Complain from preemptive debug Submitter : Sedat Dilek Date: 2010-05-31 10:10 (39 days old) Message-ID : References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/5/31/77 Handled-By : Dmitry Monakhov Sergey Senozhatsky Patch : http://www.spinics.net/lists/cpufreq/msg01631.html https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/106555/ This bug is fixed Upstream [1]: commit 8c215bd3890c347dfb6a2db4779755f8b9c298a9 "sched: Cure nr_iowait_cpu() users" - Sedat - [1] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=8c215bd3890c347dfb6a2db4779755f8b9c298a9 -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: 2.6.35-rc4-git3: Reported regressions from 2.6.34
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 06:34:25PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16334 > > Subject : reiserfs locking (v2) > > Submitter : Sergey Senozhatsky > > Date : 2010-07-02 9:34 (7 days old) > > Message-ID : <20100702093451.ga3...@swordfish.minsk.epam.com> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127806306303590&w=2 > > Frederic? Al? I assume this is some late fallout from the BKL removal > ages ago.. It's the old filldir-vs-mmap crud, but normally it should > be impossible to trigger because the inode for a directory should > never be mmap'able, so we should never have the same i_mutex lock used > for both mmap and for filldir protection. > > We saw some of that oddity long ago, I wonder if it's lockdep being > confused about some inodes. I think it has been there from the beginning. At least it was there before the reiserfs bkl removal in .32. Indeed the readdir <-> unmap/release inversion problem can not happen. But Al said that can happen between write and release. (Although I don't see where write takes the inode mutex). He also highlighted the fact that reiserfs refcounting based on i_count was totally broken. He has a fix the whole in the vfs tree, in the for-next branch on commit 6c2bdaf089a3876226893fab00dd83596c465ad2 "Fix reiserfs_file_release()" No more uses of the i_mutex on release after that, nor i_count, but a private openers refcount and a tailpack mutex per reiserfs inode. -- This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone? Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first -- ___ Dri-devel mailing list Dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
Re: 2.6.35-rc4-git3: Reported regressions from 2.6.34
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> Unresolved regressions
> --
>
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16353
> Subject : 2.6.35 regression
> Submitter : Zeev Tarantov
> Date : 2010-07-05 13:04 (4 days old)
> Message-ID :
> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127836002702522&w=2
This is a gcc-4.5 issue. Whether it's also something that we should
change in the kernel is unclear, but at least as of now, the rule is
that you cannot compile the kernel with gcc-4.5. No idea whether the
compiler is just entirely broken, or whether it's just that it
triggers something iffy by being overly clever.
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16346
> Subject : 2.6.35-rc3-git8 - include/linux/fdtable.h:88 invoked
> rcu_dereference_check() without protection!
> Submitter : Miles Lane
> Date : 2010-07-04 22:04 (5 days old)
> Message-ID :
>
> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127828107815930&w=2
I'm not entirely sure if these RCU proving things should count as regressions.
Sure, the option to enable RCU proving is new, but the things it
reports about generally are not new - and they are usually not even
bugs in the sense that they necessarily cause any real problems.
That particular one is in the single-thread optimizated case for fget_light, ie
if (likely((atomic_read(&files->count) == 1))) {
file = fcheck_files(files, fd);
where I think it should be entirely safe in all ways without any
locking. So I think it's a false positive too.
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16334
> Subject : reiserfs locking (v2)
> Submitter : Sergey Senozhatsky
> Date : 2010-07-02 9:34 (7 days old)
> Message-ID : <20100702093451.ga3...@swordfish.minsk.epam.com>
> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127806306303590&w=2
Frederic? Al? I assume this is some late fallout from the BKL removal
ages ago.. It's the old filldir-vs-mmap crud, but normally it should
be impossible to trigger because the inode for a directory should
never be mmap'able, so we should never have the same i_mutex lock used
for both mmap and for filldir protection.
We saw some of that oddity long ago, I wonder if it's lockdep being
confused about some inodes.
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16333
> Subject : iwl3945: HARDWARE GONE??
> Submitter : Priit Laes
> Date : 2010-07-02 16:02 (7 days old)
> Message-ID : <1278086575.2889.8.ca...@chi>
> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127808659705983&w=2
This either got fixed, or will be practically impossible to debug. The
reporter ends up being unable to reproduce the issue.
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16332
> Subject : Kernel crashes in tty code (tty_open)
> Submitter : wer...@guyane.yi.org
> Date : 2010-07-02 3:34 (7 days old)
> Message-ID : <1278041650.12...@guyane.yi.org>
> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127804167511930&w=2
This seems to be due to CONFIG_MRST (Moorestown).
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16330
> Subject : Dynamic Debug broken on 2.6.35-rc3?
> Submitter : Thomas Renninger
> Date : 2010-07-01 15:44 (8 days old)
> Message-ID : <201007011744.19564.tr...@suse.de>
> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127799907218877&w=2
There's a suggested patch in
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127862524404291&w=2
but no reply to it yet.
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16329
> Subject : 2.6.35-rc3: Load average climbing to 3+ with no apparent
> reason: CPU 98% idle, with hardly no I/O
> Submitter : Török Edwin
> Date : 2010-07-01 7:40 (8 days old)
> Message-ID : <20100701104022.40441...@debian>
> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127797005030536&w=2
This seems to be partly a confusion about what "load average" is. It's
not a CPU load, it's a system load average, and disk-wait processes
count towards it. He has some problem with his CD-ROM, and it sounds
like it might be hardware on the verge of going bad.
> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16324
> Subject : Oops while running fs_racer test on a POWER6 box against
> latest git
> Submitter : divya
> Date : 2010-06-30 11:34 (9 days old)
> Message-ID : <4c2b28f3.7000...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127789697303061&w=2
I wonder if this is the writeback problem. That POWER crash dump is
unreadable, so it's hard to tell, but the load in question makes that
at least likely.
If so, it should hopefully be fixed in today's git (commit
83ba7b071f30f7c01f
2.6.35-rc4-git3: Reported regressions from 2.6.34
This message contains a list of some regressions from 2.6.34, for which there are no fixes in the mainline known to the tracking team. If any of them have been fixed already, please let us know. If you know of any other unresolved regressions from 2.6.34, please let us know either and we'll add them to the list. Also, please let us know if any of the entries below are invalid. Each entry from the list will be sent additionally in an automatic reply to this message with CCs to the people involved in reporting and handling the issue. Listed regressions statistics: Date Total Pending Unresolved 2010-07-09 79 45 37 2010-06-21 46 37 26 2010-06-09 15 13 10 Unresolved regressions -- Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16353 Subject : 2.6.35 regression Submitter : Zeev Tarantov Date: 2010-07-05 13:04 (4 days old) Message-ID : References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127836002702522&w=2 Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16346 Subject : 2.6.35-rc3-git8 - include/linux/fdtable.h:88 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection! Submitter : Miles Lane Date: 2010-07-04 22:04 (5 days old) Message-ID : References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127828107815930&w=2 Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16337 Subject : general protection fault: [#1] SMP Submitter : Justin P. Mattock Date: 2010-07-03 22:59 (6 days old) Message-ID : <4c2fc0e3.6050...@gmail.com> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127819798215589&w=2 Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16334 Subject : reiserfs locking (v2) Submitter : Sergey Senozhatsky Date: 2010-07-02 9:34 (7 days old) Message-ID : <20100702093451.ga3...@swordfish.minsk.epam.com> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127806306303590&w=2 Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16333 Subject : iwl3945: HARDWARE GONE?? Submitter : Priit Laes Date: 2010-07-02 16:02 (7 days old) Message-ID : <1278086575.2889.8.ca...@chi> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127808659705983&w=2 Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16332 Subject : Kernel crashes in tty code (tty_open) Submitter : wer...@guyane.yi.org Date: 2010-07-02 3:34 (7 days old) Message-ID : <1278041650.12...@guyane.yi.org> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127804167511930&w=2 Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16330 Subject : Dynamic Debug broken on 2.6.35-rc3? Submitter : Thomas Renninger Date: 2010-07-01 15:44 (8 days old) Message-ID : <201007011744.19564.tr...@suse.de> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127799907218877&w=2 Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16329 Subject : 2.6.35-rc3: Load average climbing to 3+ with no apparent reason: CPU 98% idle, with hardly no I/O Submitter : Török Edwin Date: 2010-07-01 7:40 (8 days old) Message-ID : <20100701104022.40441...@debian> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127797005030536&w=2 Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16324 Subject : Oops while running fs_racer test on a POWER6 box against latest git Submitter : divya Date: 2010-06-30 11:34 (9 days old) Message-ID : <4c2b28f3.7000...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127789697303061&w=2 Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16323 Subject : 2.6.35-rc3-git4 - kernel/sched.c:616 invoked rcu_dereference_check() without protection! Submitter : Miles Lane Date: 2010-07-01 12:21 (8 days old) Message-ID : References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127798693125541&w=2 Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16322 Subject : WARNING: at /arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h:1005 read_measured_perf_ctrs+0x5a/0x70() Submitter : boris64 Date: 2010-07-01 13:54 (8 days old) Handled-By : H. Peter Anvin Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16312 Subject : WARNING: at fs/fs-writeback.c:1127 __mark_inode_dirty Submitter : Zdenek Kabelac Date: 2010-06-28 9:40 (11 days old) Message-ID : References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=127771804806465&w=2 Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16311 Subject : [REGRESSION][SUSPEND] 2.6.35-rcX won't suspend Lenovo W500 laptop Submitter : Shawn Starr Date
